Yeah, he still has yet to explain how his quotes in any way change the science supporting the theory, but by gosh, he keeps on trolling with it. What a little trooper.

What science??? Are these leaders of your religion talking about science or are they talking about LYING to people?

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."- Sir John Houghton,first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."- Paul Watson,co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth,President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."- Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment

stirfrybry:Zafler: Wow, this thread is a fine collection of debunked talking points.

1. The planets are NOT warming. Explanation with sources here, courtesy of Jon Snow (new window)

There were several others, but most of them were re-re-re-debunked in the linked thread. Read up yourself, most of them have actual, you know, citations with the relevant science.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N1/C1.php

peer reviewed and everything. And it's recent. 2008

denial in the science world? it's more likely than you think.

Science never ends. repeatability is all that matters. Your science is getting outdated, mr. warmer.

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment

Mad Tea Party:Herunar: It really is quite plausible if you read about, say, what the tobacco companies did decades ago to quell the scientific consensus that smoking is harmful. Their efficiency in public manipulation ought to make any person fearful.

When did the scientific consensus on smoking ever get suppressed? There were always a few shady tobacco-funded studies, but these have been on the fringe on the scientific community.

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."- Sir John Houghton,first chairman of IPCC

MongtheMerciless:IXI Jim IXI: WarpZone: If you won't make an earnest effort to verify the beliefs you hold so strongly (and attempt to impose on others via policy) then you aren't any smarter than the bible thumping creationist flatearth troofers you mock here everyday.

I have no problem with people who question the idea of Global Warming...it's a complex idea that should be examined from all sides. However, I do think it's fair to say that pouring shiat into the air, water, and ground and tearing down forests is a bad thing that might affect other species.

I agree with that.

I understand the physics behing global warming and believe it to be true, and also (quite depressingly) it will cause the planet to rise in temperature even if we all cleaned up our acts instantly, due to latency.

BUT, even if global warming were to turn out to be incorrect, if it is the means for encouraging us all to stop polluting the planet, deforesting, dumping toxic shiat in the ocean, to stop burning fossil fuels and getting our energy from non-renewable resources, then so be it. Even if the theory isn't sound, as a political tool, who could possibly argue against it.

We already have the technical expertise to stop doing all the stuff above and live solely off renewable energy resources, what is needed is the impetus and the unshirkable political responsibility to achieve it. If global warming cleans up the planet but turns out to not happen, all the better for our future.

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."- David Foreman,co-founder of Earth First!

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world."-Dave Foreman,co-founder of Earth First!

nicksteel:"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth,President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."- Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment

And what is the problem with that?

Even if its all wrong, (which it isn't) we'll be doing the right thing policy-wise.

For once, its policitians hedging their hedges that the theory is all correct, and pushing it anyway because even if it's wrong, it's a political tool to sort out a lot of problems with the world.

That is not a problem, thats bloody good government. And although I do believe the theory of global warming and how it works is actually sound; wouldn't it be farking wonderful if we cleaned up the world and found out global warming wasn't going to ruin the planet anyway.

Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.There's only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery.Tom DeWeese

MongtheMerciless:nicksteel: "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth,President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."- Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment

And what is the problem with that?

Even if its all wrong, (which it isn't) we'll be doing the right thing policy-wise.

For once, its policitians hedging their hedges that the theory is all correct, and pushing it anyway because even if it's wrong, it's a political tool to sort out a lot of problems with the world.

That is not a problem, thats bloody good government. And although I do believe the theory of global warming and how it works is actually sound; wouldn't it be farking wonderful if we cleaned up the world and found out global warming wasn't going to ruin the planet anyway.

How do we lose?

All of the big pollution problems were solved decades ago. The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, even the land is cleaner.

What you are signing up for is the dismantling of industry and living like the native americans did 150 years ago.

You're linking to a science denialist website funded by Exxon to try to show anything?Seriously? (new window)

One that gives a mis-interpreted conclusion of the results reached? Do you not realize that this is regarding water temperature on shifts in it? That that is what the word estuary means? Here, read the actual abstract. It does not say what you think it says. (new window)

I mean, wow man.

I have asked you this question countless times and you have never answered it.

Where should one go to get information that goes against your beliefs?? For you to make the claim that a "denialist" site is not a good source does nothing but show your arrogance and stupidity. A rare combination most places.

Zafler:Heh, now lil nicky is quoting people that run far right wing think tanks. (new window)

That's special. Again, what does this have anything to do with what actual scientific inquery has shown?

I have asked you this question countless times and you have never answered it.

Where should one go to get information that goes against your beliefs?? For you to make the claim that a right wing think tank is not a good source does nothing but show your arrogance and stupidity. A rare combination most places.

Zafler:Oh, and nick this is the 4th or 5th time I've given that answer for your troll.

Anyone lurking want to get relevant data and explanations, I suggest realclimate.org (run by climatologist, with citations for the data under discussion), NASA.gov, NOAA.gov, or royalsociety.org

I asked you a question and you childishly ignored it.

Where am I supposed to go to get information that challenges your religion? You call anything that disagrees with you denialist.

Those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable are in fact making an understandable, though primitive, response. The mosquito stings so you slap the mosquito, the apple is sour so you fling it into the bushes, someone reeks of body odor while attempting to kiss you and you give them a shove. Push it away, the child's Weeners to something offending, with no further thought about repercussions. Adults, in human society, are supposed to be logical, entertain facts, digest, discuss, and conclude. They most often do none of this, but simply react, as a child, to the offending substance of message, rejecting it. These are not leaders of men, as this type of reaction makes them scarcely suitable for any life but swinging from trees, but as Internet access is granted to anyone, they write email and post their simplistic reactions on message board. "Go away, you're crazy, I don't want to hear it", they cry, and when the shift occurrs will be found huddled in some corner making these demands still.

Those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable are in fact making an understandable, though primitive, response. The mosquito stings so you slap the mosquito, the apple is sour so you fling it into the bushes, someone reeks of body odor while attempting to kiss you and you give them a shove. Push it away, the child's Weeners to something offending, with no further thought about repercussions. Adults, in human society, are supposed to be logical, entertain facts, digest, discuss, and conclude. They most often do none of this, but simply react, as a child, to the offending substance of message, rejecting it. These are not leaders of men, as this type of reaction makes them scarcely suitable for any life but swinging from trees, but as Internet access is granted to anyone, they write email and post their simplistic reactions on message board. "Go away, you're crazy, I don't want to hear it", they cry, and when the shift occurs will be found huddled in some corner making these demands still.

I answered your question. Just because you're looking for new things to troll for replies with, does not mean it was not there.

Also, the only reason I bother with your trolling butt, is because if my somewhat informed layman self can make sure your childish rants and ignorance of science don't go unchallenged, then the time spent replying to a well known troll is not wasted.

Especially if it gets the lurkers to check into what scientific inquery is actually indicating.

Zafler:Oh, and nick this is the 4th or 5th time I've given that answer for your troll.

Anyone lurking want to get relevant data and explanations, I suggest realclimate.org (run by climatologist, with citations for the data under discussion), NASA.gov, NOAA.gov, or royalsociety.org

Gavin is a true believer.

His take on CO2 concentration lag is hilarious.

The argument goes like this. CO2 changes happen, on average, 800 years after temp changes according to ice core data and other proxies.

Gavin maintains that even though the first 800 years of warming may not have been caused by CO2 changes, the following periods fit the CO2 theory.

The denier argument is that the ocean warming and cooling causes co2 changes and the lag is the how long equalibrium takes to be reached. Warmer water hold less gas.

NOAA has a page confirming the ocean link to CO2 flux

Warming then becomes a matter of the sun output/sunspot/cosmis ray flux/cloud seeding formula and then you gotta mix in El Nino/PDO/AMO and all their teleconnections and then you can find the pesky CO2 signal in there somewhere.

How so? It's supported by the linked studies given in the explanations for it.

Also, your summary was snipped because you really either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

The observed 800 year lag is caused by Milankovitch cycles causing a certain amount of warming, at which point carbon dioxide comes out of solution in the various bodies of water it is held in (sometimes methane pockets erupt as well). That's the normal observed cycle.

Now, humans come along and release carbon that has been sequestered for millions to hundreds of millions of years, leading to a spike in carbon dioxide concentrations. Carbon dioxide is a warming influence on the Earth because it "traps" near infrared energy that is reflected back from the Earth.

That's, as I recall, most of the salient points. The ones that various research has shown to be true.

I answered your question. Just because you're looking for new things to troll for replies with, does not mean it was not there.

Also, the only reason I bother with your trolling butt, is because if my somewhat informed layman self can make sure your childish rants and ignorance of science don't go unchallenged, then the time spent replying to a well known troll is not wasted.

Especially if it gets the lurkers to check into what scientific inquery is actually indicating.

Is that what you call an answer?? You hide behind peer review the same way that a two year old hides behind his mother. Peer review is bullshiat.

Your leaders impress upon you the wisdom of peer review at the expense of everything else. That allows you the ability to attack anything else.

nicksteel, I will accept peer reviewed articles disputing, or offering alternative theories to anthropogenic climate change as evidence opposing anthropogenic climate change. That seems like a relatively simple, and reasonable metric. I'd prefer a link to the article, or articles, rather than an interpretation of the article.

Zafler:Stirfrybry, here read the actual entry about the lag. It contains citaitons from the actual scientific publications and everything. (new window)

nicksteel

So, you're throwing out the bar at which almost all sciences set the level for validity (that and other people citing the research) out the window because it's "bullshiat" in your mind?

So we're supposed to believe people that have no education in these matters and their interpretations? Like the idiocy that stirfrybry linked to earlier?

Wow, just wow, so do you have your mechanic check your heart and lungs? It's essentially the same sort of thing.

Peer review means that papers submitted for publication are reviewed and critiqued by other scientists having expertise in the same field. Therefore those who review the papers are in the same or similar fields.

Climatology is not a big field, the papers are often not very technical and the datasets used to generate the papers is too large to include easily, so it is almost standard practice for Climatologists to leave out the data and state their conclusions in the papers.

There was a large paper written about the actual peer review process of the IPCC. This came about through continued obfuscation of the facts when IPCC people were questioned directly. You can read the full text of Steve McLean's paper here.

The crux of the paper is that the review process is highly political and completely dysfunctional. You have a government agency who's survival depends on global warming, researchers who are paid by the governments and reviewers which work directly or indirectly for the government agency.

I found the section on the reviewers comments very interesting. To me it shows a clear bias toward the need to sensationalize global warming for the promotion of their own policies.

Below is an plot of the suggested changes by the reviewers and the number of changes rejected. You can see chapter 9 has by far the most rejected comments.

From the text of the link above you get this paragraph.

Chapter 9 is the single most important chapter of the entire report because it is where the IPCC states, "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years".

If you are an organization who's survival is at stake then you will certainly overstate this paragraph as much as possible. The reviewers comments clearly back my assertion. I would encourage you to review page 20 of the link above to get the complete picture.

These are some of the actual comments to the IPCC from the reviewers (scientists who are part of the "CONSENSUS") . Sorry for the caps, I didn't want you to miss that one.

1.05 DELETE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL BEGINNING WITH "IN ADDITION" as all of thisis highly contentious has all sorts of implicit ethical and moral judgments which you havenot even begun to address, and goes way beyond the core science, which is the only thing the WG1 should deal with. (2-1026)

1.06 As written it implies 100% attribution, which is misleading, since the idea that all climatechange is attributable to GHG forcing is an extreme position held by few if any experts.Insert "partially" after the word "been" and before "attributed". This suggestion was madein the FOD review and ignored. It is hereby repeated, for the same reason: the presentwording is deliberately misleading. (3-223)

1.07 This conclusion comes out of nowhere! After reading the past two-to-three pages aboutdiffering precipitation, soil moisture, and stream flow trends all over the place, I was quitesurprised to read "The global increase in both sever drought and large floods suggest thathydrologic conditions have become more extreme." Apparently my definition of "global"is quite different from yours. (3-421)

1.08 You MUST insert here a proper Figure showing the radiosonde records, preferably thosefrom Figure 9 of the paper of Thorne et al (2005). Figure 3.4.2 is deliberately designed toconceal the true facts about both the radiosonde and the MSU records. The pretence thatthese three records are virtually identical is a plain lie. [part only] (3-467)

1.09 This is pure speculation. The sondes in these studies have not been corrected for instanceswhere spurious warming occurs as shown in for example in Christy and Norris 2004,Christy and Spencer (2005) and the other papers to appear soon. (3-543)

1.10 1998 is quoted here as the warmest year for the global mean, without qualification. This isat odds with page 3-3, lines 15 to 19, which point out that NCDC and GISS have 2005warmer than 1998, in contrast to the CRU/UKMO estimate. (3-702)

ZaflerFind a source with actual peer review in a published journal challenging the solid scientific data behind climate change.

There's no shortage of evidence for global climate change. The problem is that there is no evidence that it is caused by carbon emissions. The arguments FOR carbon emissions as the culprit are all based on old data. All of the "proof" we've been shown ad nauseum in the media (and on Fark) is only proof that global warming is happening.

The problem is that most people don't realize that there is no real evidence to support the idea that carbon is doing it. Data collected in the last 8 years contradicts the theory that carbon is the active ingredient in climate change. Observations don't agree with the computer models or predictions.

Al Gore made a big deal about his ice core data (collected in the 90's), but he didn't mention new ice core data that completely contradicts it. Science didn't stop in 1998, and if you want to do more than make fun of trolls in Fark threads you need to acknowledge the new evidence.

The bottom line is: everyone arguing that cutting carbon emissions will preserve our planet may end up hurting the economy for something that likely won't make any difference. I, for one, would rather do something that actually matters.

MongtheMerciless:nicksteel: You hide behind peer review the same way that a two year old hides behind his mother. Peer review is bullshiat.

Or, to put another way, peer review is the process by which we can filter out the genuine scientific studies from the rantings of crazy loony nutjobs.

Peer review means that papers submitted for publication are reviewed and critiqued by other scientists having expertise in the same field. Therefore those who review the papers are in the same or similar fields.

Climatology is not a big field, the papers are often not very technical and the datasets used to generate the papers is too large to include easily, so it is almost standard practice for Climatologists to leave out the data and state their conclusions in the papers.

There was a large paper written about the actual peer review process of the IPCC. This came about through continued obfuscation of the facts when IPCC people were questioned directly. You can read the full text of Steve McLean's paper here.

The crux of the paper is that the review process is highly political and completely dysfunctional. You have a government agency who's survival depends on global warming, researchers who are paid by the governments and reviewers which work directly or indirectly for the government agency.

I found the section on the reviewers comments very interesting. To me it shows a clear bias toward the need to sensationalize global warming for the promotion of their own policies.

Below is an plot of the suggested changes by the reviewers and the number of changes rejected. You can see chapter 9 has by far the most rejected comments.

From the text of the link above you get this paragraph.

Chapter 9 is the single most important chapter of the entire report because it is where the IPCC states, "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years".

If you are an organization who's survival is at stake then you will certainly overstate this paragraph as much as possible. The reviewers comments clearly back my assertion. I would encourage you to review page 20 of the link above to get the complete picture.

These are some of the actual comments to the IPCC from the reviewers (scientists who are part of the "CONSENSUS") . Sorry for the caps, I didn't want you to miss that one.

1.05 DELETE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL BEGINNING WITH "IN ADDITION" as all of thisis highly contentious has all sorts of implicit ethical and moral judgments which you havenot even begun to address, and goes way beyond the core science, which is the only thing the WG1 should deal with. (2-1026)

1.06 As written it implies 100% attribution, which is misleading, since the idea that all climatechange is attributable to GHG forcing is an extreme position held by few if any experts.Insert "partially" after the word "been" and before "attributed". This suggestion was madein the FOD review and ignored. It is hereby repeated, for the same reason: the presentwording is deliberately misleading. (3-223)

1.07 This conclusion comes out of nowhere! After reading the past two-to-three pages aboutdiffering precipitation, soil moisture, and stream flow trends all over the place, I was quitesurprised to read "The global increase in both sever drought and large floods suggest thathydrologic conditions have become more extreme." Apparently my definition of "global"is quite different from yours. (3-421)

1.08 You MUST insert here a proper Figure showing the radiosonde records, preferably thosefrom Figure 9 of the paper of Thorne et al (2005). Figure 3.4.2 is deliberately designed toconceal the true facts about both the radiosonde and the MSU records. The pretence thatthese three records are virtually identical is a plain lie. [part only] (3-467)

1.09 This is pure speculation. The sondes in these studies have not been corrected for instanceswhere spurious warming occurs as shown in for example in Christy and Norris 2004,Christy and Spencer (2005) and the other papers to appear soon. (3-543)

1.10 1998 is quoted here as the warmest year for the global mean, without qualification. This isat odds with page 3-3, lines 15 to 19, which point out that NCDC and GISS have 2005warmer than 1998, in contrast to the CRU/UKMO estimate. (3-702)

IXI Jim IXI:Zafler: Wow, just wow, so do you have your mechanic check your heart and lungs? It's essentially the same sort of thing.

In this particular case, I think he should be allowed to go ahead.

/time for your oil change

Those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable are in fact making an understandable, though primitive, response. The mosquito stings so you slap the mosquito, the apple is sour so you fling it into the bushes, someone reeks of body odor while attempting to kiss you and you give them a shove. Push it away, the child's Weeners to something offending, with no further thought about repercussions. Adults, in human society, are supposed to be logical, entertain facts, digest, discuss, and conclude. They most often do none of this, but simply react, as a child, to the offending substance of message, rejecting it. These are not leaders of men, as this type of reaction makes them scarcely suitable for any life but swinging from trees, but as Internet access is granted to anyone, they write email and post their simplistic reactions on message board. "Go away, you're crazy, I don't want to hear it", they cry, and when the shift occurrs will be found huddled in some corner making these demands still.

Anyone want to join a serious discussion on climate without name calling can join this lightly traveled site I like to post climate stuff to on a regular basis. I try not to get too heated, but I'm the local crank there and you can troll to your hearts desire as well if that's your thing. I'm not associated in any way with the site but, I would welcome some serious debaters there. The threads get knocked to the top of the forum when people make a post, so it's a different type of forum. More fresh discussion and no moderation... just don't post pr0n, please...the site IS ALSO NSFW. Don't go there if you're working. It's littered with profanity even in thread titles.

anyway, come on believers! this denier needs some info clashing!!

My name is tinfoil. LOLhttp://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=16622

oh yeah, it's mostly a political site. It contains some highly amusing people, 95% of which are grade A trolls. Expect this if you navigate to my link.

A federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea has resigned from the UN-sponsored climate assessment team because his group's leader had politicized the process. Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth's assertion in October that global warming was responsible for the strong hurricanes experienced this past year and that "the North Atlantic hurricane Season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."Said Landsea in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."Landsea closed his resignation letter by saying, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Err, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and its' warming effect on atmosphere has been known for over 100 years. That is well documented physics.

Data in the last 8 years does nothing to contradict the theory. Even now, with a global minimum and a strong La Nina effect this last year, 2008 ranks as 10th in the warmest years on record. We are now warmer than at any point since the last ice age.

Err, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and its' warming effect on atmosphere has been known for over 100 years. That is well documented physics.

Data in the last 8 years does nothing to contradict the theory. Even now, with a global minimum and a strong La Nina effect this last year, 2008 ranks as 10th in the warmest years on record. We are now warmer than at any point since the last ice age.

Oh, and for the last time, no one gives a flying fark about Al Gore.

You only say that about Al Gore because of all of the leaders in this religion, he has made the biggest fool of himself. He did get a Nobel Peace Prize, so somebody cares.

How so? It's supported by the linked studies given in the explanations for it.

Also, your summary was snipped because you really either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

The observed 800 year lag is caused by Milankovitch cycles causing a certain amount of warming, at which point carbon dioxide comes out of solution in the various bodies of water it is held in (sometimes methane pockets erupt as well). That's the normal observed cycle.

Now, humans come along and release carbon that has been sequestered for millions to hundreds of millions of years, leading to a spike in carbon dioxide concentrations. Carbon dioxide is a warming influence on the Earth because it "traps" near infrared energy that is reflected back from the Earth.

That's, as I recall, most of the salient points. The ones that various research has shown to be true.

I understand this. CO2 is near saturation already with respect to the logorithmic relationship of concentration to forcing potential and the extra forcing from the 5% increase in concentration humans are responsible for is miniscule in comparision to the forcings from natural sources.